Ravindra Singh, J.@mdashHeard Shri Radhey Shyam Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant Hemraj Maurya, with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 398 of 2004,
under Sections 406 and 409 I.P.C., P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Shri Ramveer Singh Chauhan, Upper Zila Sahkari
Adhikari, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur, on 16.10.2004 at 5 pm, in respect of the incident which had occurred between 12.11.1998 to 29.9.1999.
According to the prosecution version the applicant was Secretary of the Kisan Sewa Samiti, Nigohi. The allegation against him is that he has
misappropriated the amount of Rs. 4,02,391/-. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the allegation made against the applicant is false
and baseless because there is no evidence available on the record to support the allegation. It is further contended that this offence was committed
by some other persons, but they have not been made the accused in the present case. The higher authorities, who were involved in the
embezzlement, by hatching a conspiracy to save their skin from the criminal liability, the applicant was made the accused in the present case and
the applicant is an innocent person. He had discharged duties with honesty.
4. It is further contended that there is a difference in the amount of embezzlement as it is mentioned in the F.I.R. as Rs. 4,02,391/-, and this amount
has been shown as Rs. 4,61,829.31 in the termination order of his service and this amount has been shown as Rs. 9,69,001.93 in the proceedings
initiated against the applicant u/s 68( i) and this amount has been shows as Rs. 7,64,000/- in other proceedings and the applicant has been
terminated from his services on 7.2.2002, but the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.10.2004. It is a too much delayed F.I.R. having no
plausible explanation.
5. It is further contended that no opportunity was given to the applicant to explain the allegations made against him. It is further contended that the
applicant is not a government employee, he was Secretary of Kisan Sewa Samiti Ltd., therefore, the offence u/s 409, I.P.C., is not made out
against the applicant. It is opposed by learned A.G.A. by submitting that applicant has misappropriated a huge amount. The documentary evidence
is available on record against the applicant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances and the arguments made by the counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly this Bail Application is rejected.
